Vote My Conscience or Vote Based On Threats by Robert Socha

During our twice-monthly city council meeting this week, I learned something about myself that has given me pause for introspection. Please indulge me, dear reader, with some background information:

Our city operates a public utility, and the Democratically run state offices have pushed through legislation that requires us to run on 50% “green energy” by 2030 and, unbelievably, 100% by 2040; an impossible assignment, especially since our present “renewable energy” production is about 1/2 of the 50% requirement. We pay about 60% less for our energy than the current energy produced by windmills and solar panels and pass those savings on to our customers, the citizens of our fine city.

A resolution came before the council to endorse the creation of a small solar and wind farm that would provide a measly 1.2KWh of electricity to our grid and grant a minute increase toward the 30% goal. My rant against the institution fueled some healthy discussion. I stated that I would vote for the resolution under duress because I fear negative repercussions for our municipality should we push against the goads in this virtue-signaling arena.

One of the main reasons I made such an ambiguous defense of my voting record is that I did not want to take the time in the council chamber to explain that the Democratic administration in Lansing added language to their legislation that even if a municipality refuses to build and use the improperly labeled “green energy,” they can override local authority and permit the projects, encoding in law a terrible form of tyranny. The Democratically controlled legislature and governor’s office curtailed local property rights and municipal autonomy in one fell swoop. In addition to the state’s ability to impose its will on municipalities, reprisal could come through economic sanctions through failed grants and earmarks. Our community would conveniently miss the awards because other communities scored higher on their “green energy” profile. If this scenario seems far-fetched, I assure you it is within the realm of possibility. Many of the standards for being awarded grants are arbitrary and subject to the interpretation of the person appointed to parse the applications and give an assessment of awardability.

Sitting in the chamber, conflicted, while other council members capitalized on my introduction of the “green energy” lies and insane public policy, I wondered at my response. Will I vote yea or nay?

Ultimately, the council kicked the ball down the road and delayed the vote until the first meeting in June, when the entire board would be together to vote on the issue. I was glad for the delay because it allowed me to think more deeply about the issue and provided the opportunity to vote my conscience in June.

The delay is excellent news because a constituent confronted and rebuked me for capitulating to the unrealized threat of reprisal should we not cow-tow to Lansing’s demands as a municipality. Through this confrontation, I learned I was allowing myself to be manipulated by those with greater authority. I learned that a small community like ours should have some dissent to the governor’s demands. With two weeks to ponder, I hope to present a strong argument defending my position.

The power to coerce acquiescence to radical climate ideologies corrupts men’s hearts and manipulates the data to support its predetermined judgment. The force-fed conclusion to the masses is that man-made CO2 emissions are catastrophically destroying the planet, and we must curtail its production at any cost. The truth is that CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere, and man’s output is not enough to have a significant detrimental effect! Additionally, if there were an increase in CO2, it would boost plant growth and help increase food production, which means, in theory, the earth could easily support population growth. (Let’s have more children!)

My conundrum is solved, and I will vote against the resolution. Even if it passes the council, which I suspect it will, the “nay” votes could catalyze a return to reasonable energy policies that provide the people with sustainable and affordable utilities.